[SA Chris]

We should use the world’s smallest violin for that

....one so tiny that only a physicist like yourself will have the equipment to determine it's existence!!

And the tiny fingers to play it with.

[JJP]

In terms of FA I would prefer if people went for a grade and used an adjective if they were not sure exactly where it sat, so hard 9b or soft 9b+ in case of erabor. 

As a 6ft 3 climber I find the topic of height in climbing really interesting.  Please dont shoot me down as I dont post often but I think the assumption that height in climbing is a big advantage doesnt stack up.  I am always inspired but taller than average climbers at the elite level but I think they are in the minority.  Taylor McNeill, Jan Hojer, Kai Lightner are all over 6 foot.  Jimmy Webb and Sharma are around 6 foot.  Sorry I dont know what height Alex is but guess over 6 foot?

In terms of grading I think there are more morphological factors at play than just height.  However, I have not climber much on grit so appreciate it may be more height dependent than other rock types. 

Personally I always assume grades are averaged out from opinions/ morphologies and so expect to find somethings easier and others more difficult due to being above average height - with this affecting bouldering more than sport. 

[Bonjoy]

My ramblings are mostly aimed at short fairly unsteep grit things, where I think height is an atypically major factor in difficulty. I totally agree that on longer steeper things and rock types with lots of intermediates (limestone) reach is less of a big deal.

[Johnny Brown]

I suppose the issue may be that you are largely concerned with grading new problems, whereas most of us are just chipping in an opinion on something that already has an established/ suggested grade. For new problems and cutting edge ones with very few repeats your idea has merit, but only until the majority get to exert their averaged opinion. The validity of a grade is basically determined by n and will always be unreliable where n is small, whether you grade for yourself or someone you've imagined.

(or listening to your tall/short mate)

Exactly - average two or more opinions. The more the better. You aren't asking your tall/short mate mate to reimagine his experience as your average one before commenting are you?

Jimmy Webb and Sharma are around 6 foot. 

6 foot is tall. UK/USA average is 5'9- 5'10". I would say the most common elite build is not outlandish, >5'10" and <70kg. There are lots of very good short climbers too but I think there are a lot more climbs much harder/ impossible for the short than for the tall. Not being able to reach a hold generally causes a step change in difficulty.

[Stu Littlefair]

I'm not going to comment on the "is height an advantage" thing because it's been done to death, we usually forget about ape index which IMO is more important and none of it explains Brooke Raboutou.

But I am going to try and bring peace to the warring tribes of Barrows and Fullwood, cos I reckon most of us actually do something in between. If someone asks my opinion on a grade I'll usually tell them what it felt like for me. Which is what Barrows said. BUT if the route/problem is really morpho I'll probably add caveats to my opinion or proffer a guess at what the grade would be for normal people.

So I reckon reality is problems/routes gradually acquire something more like a weighted average of people's opinion, where opinions from those at the extremes of the height spectrum carry less weight.

Of course - that's in the ideal world where grades are assigned based on general consultation with thoughtful and well-chosen individuals who don't use rubbish beta all the time. It's total bullshit in a world where grades are assigned based on the 10 people who felt strongly enough to vote on some online platform.

[Fultonius]

Surely we just need to replace grades with a 2 axis plot of perceived difficulty  on the vertical axis and some kind of vitruvian man height / ape index on the other.

Non- morpho problems would have minimal grade spread, morpho more. Super morpho would have a ramp to infinity above a certain height.

We could even have weight on the third axis, but maybe in the ED conscious modern world, we can just ignore that aspect?

[andy_e]

V8+ (r2=0.46)

[NaoB]

In terms of FA I would prefer if people went for a grade and used an adjective if they were not sure exactly where it sat, so hard 9b or soft 9b+ in case of erabor.   

Makes me think of Zoolook - everyone considers it right at the top of the grade, but it still gets 8a. Sometimes a hard 8a actually is tougher than a soft 8a+ in reality. But as long as we all generally know which are which, it's just climbing history, adding to the rich tapestry of our experiences...

Slash grades are a bit whack. Just pick one and then let (sensible) consensus either up-or down-grade it. Or just take the higher grade and run!

[IanP]

6 foot is tall. UK/USA average is 5'9- 5'10". I would say the most common elite build is not outlandish, >5'10" and <70kg. There are lots of very good short climbers too but I think there are a lot more climbs much harder/ impossible for the short than for the tall. Not being able to reach a hold generally causes a step change in difficulty.

6 foot is above average, not massively tall - look at a sport that has some advantages for the tall like tennis, the significant majority of top players are over 6 foot.  Climbing is nothing like that. 

When you say the most common elite build is >5'10 are you talking only about UK grit bouldering, other wise it doesn't make much sense.  Can't find heights for everyone but Stefano Ghilsolfi is 5'7, Megos 5'8, Nalle 5'8, Daniel Woods 5'7 Steve Mac can't be more than 5'7.  Ondra is always looks like more of an outlier when you seem alongside other climbers at comps.   

As Stu says this has been done to death, but there seems little evidence that there's a particularly strong correlation between height an climbing ability, and any correlation there is would seem to be around or slighly below average height.

Maybe grit bouldering is populated by load of tall people lanking all the soft touches 

[shark]

Makes me think of Zoolook - everyone considers it right at the top of the grade, but it still gets 8a.

Whoa there! - Not me!

It was the first 8a I did (1994!) and the first 8a for a couple of my mates with similar climbing profile. And yes it was super polished then too.

At the time I done one 7c+ and two 7c’s and a ton of E5 trad climbing. We had stamina and technique but were weak. As an indication I literally didn’t have the strength to dog the moves on Raindogs let alone the even harder moves on Baboo Baboo or GBH and it took a lot of work over the following few years to get up to the level of strength. I’m sure this weakness is  laughable to Millennials but it shows that Zoolook is still doable by someone who would be shut down on easy steep boulder problems.

I think it is an interesting case where the profile of the notionally average climber has changed in the same way that Brown/Whillans cracks became averagely harder as climbers spent less time crack climbing. For climber’s now Zoolook might feel relatively harder than climbers back then. Whether that means it is 8a+ now because of changing trends I have no idea but it feels unlikely.

[northern yob]

Makes me think of Zoolook - everyone considers it right at the top of the grade, but it still gets 8a.

Whoa there! - Not me!

It was the first 8a I did (1994!) and the first 8a for a couple of my mates with similar climbing profile. And yes it was super polished then too.

At the time I done one 7c+ and two 7c’s and a ton of E5 trad climbing. We had stamina and technique but were weak. As an indication I literally didn’t have the strength to dog the moves on Raindogs let alone the even harder moves on Baboo Baboo or GBH and it took a lot of work over the following few years to get up to the level of strength. I’m sure this weakness is  laughable to Millennials but it shows that Zoolook is still doable by someone who would be shut down on easy steep boulder problems.

I think it is an interesting case where the profile of the notionally average climber has changed in the same way that Brown/Whillans cracks became averagely harder as climbers spent less time crack climbing. For climber’s now Zoolook might feel relatively harder than climbers back then. Whether that means it is 8a+ now because of changing trends I have no idea but it feels unlikely.

Now we are talking, old school versus new school grades… see Lancashire quarry E6 6c’s or any 80’s E6 (peak limestone) 7c on a rope, marginal/shit gear. Most would probably get E7 if done now. As climbing trends change certain styles become harder/easier. Does that mean the grades should change?

Back on topic ultimately I think you can only really say what grade something felt to you. And whilst we all factor in our own weaknesses/strengths trying to guess (ultimately that’s all it can ever be) what other people will think is at best inaccurate.
On reach it’s a very interesting debate, after years of setting ,including numerous World Cup/championships etc it’s really hard to gauge! I’d say the optimum size is below average, plastic has less options (no itermediates etc) than other rock types yet more often than not there is a short way round a big reach/span see anyone of thousands of kids finding amazing solutions to problems set for adults. I once went climbing with lynn hill (check me) it was a humbling experience and definitely stopped me using the reach card as much. Certain rock types suit different body types more or less,with grit probably suiting the taller quite often, I’m still saying 5’ 8 and below 70kgs is overall better than Adam’s average human across the board.

Oh and slash grades are bollocks

[Duncan campbell]

Makes me think of Zoolook - everyone considers it right at the top of the grade, but it still gets 8a.

Whoa there! - Not me!

It was the first 8a I did (1994!) and the first 8a for a couple of my mates with similar climbing profile. And yes it was super polished then too.

At the time I done one 7c+ and two 7c’s and a ton of E5 trad climbing. We had stamina and technique but were weak. As an indication I literally didn’t have the strength to dog the moves on Raindogs let alone the even harder moves on Baboo Baboo or GBH and it took a lot of work over the following few years to get up to the level of strength. I’m sure this weakness is  laughable to Millennials but it shows that Zoolook is still doable by someone who would be shut down on easy steep boulder problems.

I think it is an interesting case where the profile of the notionally average climber has changed in the same way that Brown/Whillans cracks became averagely harder as climbers spent less time crack climbing. For climber’s now Zoolook might feel relatively harder than climbers back then. Whether that means it is 8a+ now because of changing trends I have no idea but it feels unlikely.

Was it a relatively quick tick for you back then Shark?

I’ve only hadn’t  quick tickle but it felt tricky for sure - haven’t been on raindogs or GBH though. I had only climbed a couple of 8as back then and none in the uk. It’s one I’m very keen for at some point though

[Will Hunt]

"One of the best and hardest 8a's" - Ondra

[shark]

Was it a relatively quick tick for you back then Shark?

I’ve only hadn’t  quick tickle but it felt tricky for sure - haven’t been on raindogs or GBH though. I had only climbed a couple of 8as back then and none in the uk. It’s one I’m very keen for at some point though

Definitely not a quick tick. It was a long time ago and I didn’t keep records. It felt like a massive siege at the time with attempts spread over just over two years after doing New Dawn. I was doing a mix of trad and sport and in a demanding 9-5 job. It was totally at my limit and I was conscious at the time that it suited me so I’d have to take a step back and get stronger to progress. It was 5 years before I ticked my next 8a - Raindogs.

My main point is that it’s not a route that you need to be strong for and the grade should reflect that (though it seems everyone is comparitively strong these days). It’s pretty sequency and conditions make a big difference - I ended up ticking it in November on the unlikeliest of days and by the skin of my teeth.

[Johnny Brown]

I once went climbing with lynn hill (check me) it was a humbling experience and definitely stopped me using the reach card as much.

Yeah sure BB and others don't seem to struggle often, but OTOH I bouldered a lot with Hazel on grit over a couple of years and a lot of stuff was basically impossible. Her conclusion was that grit bouldering grades were quite often useless, simply not applicable for someone of her stats.

6 foot is above average, not massively tall -

Funny that, cos 3" below average and everyone says you're short. And I said tall, not 'massively tall', no one would say 6 foot is 'massively tall'. In short, thanks for reiterating the bleeding obvious.

[SA Chris]

Big up the massive massif!

[northern yob]

I’m calling bullshit. Impossible is a strong word. I bet lynn hill wouldn’t say they were impossible even if she couldn’t do them, which is probably quite telling. I bet if hazel was to revisit them she might actually find that some of those impossible problems aren’t actually impossible for her anymore.

Ben’s a great example, there are quite a lot of moves at Stanage,turns out there’s only one which might be impossible for him, I think shorty’s should stop moaning. As should lanky streaks. In general 99.8% of the time it’s an excuse.

[36chambers]

I’m calling bullshit. Impossible is a strong word. I bet lynn hill wouldn’t say they were impossible even if she couldn’t do them, which is probably quite telling. I bet if hazel was to revisit them she might actually find that some of those impossible problems aren’t actually impossible for her anymore.

Ben’s a great example, there are quite a lot of moves at Stanage,turns out there’s only one which might be impossible for him, I think shorty’s should stop moaning. As should lanky streaks. In general 99.8% of the time it’s an excuse.

I agree, if it's not too bad for me therefore it can't be all that bad for anyone else. They just need to try harder.

[JJP]

Ye sorry I had meant sharma and webb as further examples of tall climbers at 6 foot.  As already mentioned this has perhaps been discussed too much before and is only one factor.  However, out of interest checked spread of heights for those who have climbed 9b+ and/ or 8C+ on wiki or 8a; 

9b+
Adam Ondra 6'1, Stefano Ghisolfi 5'7, Megos 5'8, Sharma 6'0, Schubert 5'9 and Bosi (?)
8C+
Daniel Woods 5'7 , Dave Graham 5'10, Jimmy Webb 6'0, Daisuke Ichimiya 5'3, Griffin Whiteside (?), Shawn Raboutou (?), Pirmin Bertle 6'0, christian core 5'8, Rustam Gelmanov 5'5, Charles Albert 5'9, Dai Koyamada 5'5, Giuliano Cameroni 5'9, adam ondra 6'1, Taylor McNeill 6'3
 
So pretty broad spread of heights and so perhaps we should just get on with it 

[Stu Littlefair]

Like I said, height doesn’t tell you much. Two 5’7” climbers could have wingspans from 5’5” to 6”.

One of them is going to get up brass monkeys and the other isn’t.

[Johnny Brown]

One of them is going to get up brass monkeys and the other isn’t.

Exactly. We've all been out climbing and seen someone tall reach past the crux, and we've all seen someone short have a whole new crux handed to them. The reason short climbers are well represented in the upper echelons because if you're short you have to get really good to compensate for your height. Likewise the very tall are under represented because, operating on climbs overwhelming developed, graded or set by shorter climbers they rarely get the opportunity to develop any actual skill when there is so much low-hanging fruit to be had by lanking everything. Meanwhile those pushing the standards - Livesey, Fawcett, Moffatt, Moon, Sharma, Ondra, Honnold etc - are all 6 footers or at least a couple of inches the right side of average. Tall enough to have an advantage but not so much they miss the boat.

I bet lynn hill wouldn’t say they were impossible even if she couldn’t do them

Seriously? Have you been on the brownies again? Fuck Lynn Hill and her positive mental attitude. Here in the North of England we call it as it is, and if it's a grim November afternoon and you're getting nowhere on some piece of shit problem anyone not a total midget has already lanked and moved on, you're entitled to call it impossible. Even if what you really mean is somewhat harder than the given grade. I don't remember you being so enthusiastic about Marc LeMenestrel's growth mindset platitudes. Or is he just the wrong sort of shortie?

[mrjonathanr]

I bet lynn hill wouldn’t say they were impossible even if she couldn’t do them

Seriously? Have you been on the brownies again? Fuck Lynn Hill and her positive mental attitude.

Nothing to do with a mental attitude (or some other self-congratulatory nonsense); it's to do with crimping on stuff you wouldn't consider viable.

[Johnny Brown]

Yeah likewise Hazel was trying the crux of green traverse by crimping on some nothing intermediates. Not impossible, not 7a or whatever it gets. She's projecting this desperate and not particularly good variation while everyone else has lanked the move and left. Sure Yob would have hung around to spot Lynn on it tho.

[northern yob]

Seriously? Have you been on the brownies again? Fuck Lynn Hill and her positive mental attitude. Here in the North of England we call it as it is, and if it's a grim November afternoon and you're getting nowhere on some piece of shit problem anyone not a total midget has already lanked and moved on, you're entitled to call it impossible. Even if what you really mean is somewhat harder than the given grade. I don't remember you being so enthusiastic about Marc LeMenestrel's growth mindset platitudes. Or is he just the wrong sort of shortie?

Ha ha I’m Always on the brownies. So calling it like it is, is saying it’s impossible when it’s actually not, it’s just a bit cold and you can’t be arsed to persevere, because the people with you have lanked it.

From up here in Lancashire that’s nothing like impossible or telling it like it is.

Menestrels another whinging fucker, but a good example of not pronouncing it impossible and finding a way look at Brad Pitt, seemed to favour the giant, thanks to him now possibly easier for the short.

It’s got fuck all to do with mindset bollocks and everything to do with finding a way. I think you must still be stoned if you think I’m spouting about a positive mind set on here. As MrJ points out it’s about pulling like fuck, and footwork

[Will Hunt]

One of them is going to get up brass monkeys and the other isn’t.

Exactly. We've all been out climbing and seen someone tall reach past the crux, and we've all seen someone short have a whole new crux handed to them. The reason short climbers are well represented in the upper echelons because if you're short you have to get really good to compensate for your height. Likewise the very tall are under represented because, operating on climbs overwhelming developed, graded or set by shorter climbers they rarely get the opportunity to develop any actual skill when there is so much low-hanging fruit to be had by lanking everything. Meanwhile those pushing the standards - Livesey, Fawcett, Moffatt, Moon, Sharma, Ondra, Honnold etc - are all 6 footers or at least a couple of inches the right side of average. Tall enough to have an advantage but not so much they miss the boat.

 I can't tell whether you've just typed a load of drivel as a joke or in earnest.